Frequently purchased together

There are two ways to look at the mountain: as an obstacle that you need to conquer, or as an ever-changing playground that offers limitless possibilities for self-expression. The Atomic Bent Chetler Ski is firmly in the latter camp. It's always been a fun, jib-ready powder ski, but this time around it's been re-engineered to float through the blower even more easily, charge down crud like a freight train, and spin, butter, and pop like gravity doesn't apply to it. What sort of soul-selling did Atomic have to agree to hit this sort of do-it-all shred benchmark? None, actually. It just built the Bent Chetler using Step Down ABS sidewalls and brand-spanking-new HRZN Tech--a subtle edge-to-edge horizontal rocker, like the hull of a boat--to increase the Chetler's tip and tail surface area by 10% without boosting the swing weight or reducing the ski's ability to track and resist deflection. Along with the tip and tail Powder Rocker, this gives the Chetler a loose and super-playful feel so you can butter, slash, and powerslide your way around the mountain like Chris Bentchetler, the guru of easy-breezy backcountry jibbing.

The Chetler's not a one-trick pow pony, though. The poppy and playful Lite Woodcore gets a stiffness boost from Carbon Sprocket Booster inserts, which are laid up fore and aft of the binding area to maximize stability and increase edge hold so you can mach through chop and chunder without feeling like you're going to get bucked into a tree. Burly sidewalls give you extra edging powder, and the Chetler's 40% of traditional camber take the pucker out of high-speed groomer laps, so you can rally it every day of the winter if you so choose. If the mountain's going to be your playground, you'd better be able to get rad no matter the conditions.

Here's what others have to say...

View

Hi guys! I am thinking of getting Atomic BC 2015 but I want to know your opinion on the height and mounting position. I am 187cm tall (6'1) and weigh around 95kg (210 pounds). I don't ski switch almost at all and I plan on using them for some skinning, open powder runs and trees. Cheers!

192's are still playful

Comment on Alex Degnan's photo »

Question regarding sizing, I know there's been a little discussion between the 185 and 192, but I'm a little smaller. I'm 5'9" and around 160 lbs. I am an intermediate/expert skier with a playful style - not a hard charger by any means or any race background. I'm worried that the 178 might be too short with the rocker profile, but that the 186 might be too heavy. Not looking to use this as a one ski quiver but for trips into the deep. Any help is appreciated.

Hey Michael, Choosing a size can be one of the most difficult decisions when it comes to a new ski. I would say if you plan to use these mainly for skiing pow then the 185 would be perfect. The longer length would provide more float in pow and the contact point would not feel too short.

If you mainly want to jib with these skis then I think the 178 would be the best option. It would have less swing weight and overall would be easier to move around. However for skiing pow and hitting backcountry booters the 185 should work perfectly.

For reference I am 5'10" and weight 165-17-lbs. I found the 192 to be perfect for what I would use the ski for, however I do like a longer ski, especially one with as much rocker as this ski has.

First off, I think 178 will be too short for just about any advanced/expert level skier. This ski has a lot of rocker in the tip and tail and you'll notice it. Given that...it's sounding like the 185 would be the better option for you. It's a super playful ski and if you're using it mainly as your pow ski, you'll love it. There will be a little bit of weight difference between the 185 and 178, but the extra stability a 185 will offer will give you more benefits than the weight.

I don't know if you saw my other reviews/comments below, but you'll want to be weary of the mounting point on the 185 though. The recommended line is just barely behind true center. I'd recommend mounted them -2 or -2.5 behind that recommended line. They'll ski better there.

Have an answer for Michael Mooradian?

More Versatile than previous versions

Familiarity:
I've used it several times

This ski is super capable. I have the 192 for deep days, but am surprised at how it handles all mountain conditions. Much better at speed in crud and on groomers than the previous versions of the benchet. Atomic definitely stiffened the ski up a bit. Once I got this ski, I got rid of both my 190 Moment bibby pros and 196 Governors. It's just as stable, but way more playful than either of the Moments. I was never a fan of the previous versions, but this year they hit the design out of the park. Home run. Very balanced for such a big ski.

It even handles bumps and groomers. It's a little wide for true performance in these areas, but you can still have a lot of fun. This ski is a crud buster** and pow slayer first and foremost, but could be a daily driver if you like fatter skis. Just dont size up like I did, its pretty heavy for bumps and trees, although awesome when things open up.

** I found the new HRZN Tech, boat hull/spoon shaped tip, to improve crud busting performance the most. Even more so than float in powder (Although I haven't gotten it into anything super duper deep)... It doesnt get deflected like other tips, even compared to stiffer skis like the 196 moment governor. Maybe it has something to do with the HRZN tips being made out of ABS plastic.

Comment on Vail Szendrei's review »

First Impression - one ski quiver

Familiarity:
I've used it once or twice and have initial impressions

I took my new Benny's out for their inaugural run at Alpine Meadows in Tahoe on December 20th. I stuck mostly to groomers cuz I was with my kids, but ventured out a bit off summit chair to try them in more varied conditions. I have my guardian 16 mnc's mounted 2cm behind true center, and they feel great. I'm glad I didn't mount them farther forward, because they feel almost perfectly centered where I've got'em.

Pro's: playful: I felt like I could spin on a dime, but they weren't unstable or whimpy when I set the edge turning: for a fat ski, the combo of camber and sidecut produces an agile, turny platform. versatility: the Benny is fun and reliable from groomers to crud and deep snow aesthetic: not everyone cares about this, but these skis are beautiful to look at.

VERDICT: I'll write a long term review at the end of the season, but if the first two days are any indication Atomic has hit it out of the park with this iteration. It was equally at home on groomers, mixed crud and fresh pow. It's fun, playful and nimble. The new Benny is quickly becoming my go-to, one ski quiver!

Crash Testing

Comment on Alex Degnan's photo »

The most fun you can have on snow

Familiarity:
I've put it through the wringer

This past winter I spent roughly 150 days riding only this ski (185 most days, 192 for bigger lines) and I've never been more pleased with the way one ski performed in almost every imaginable condition. Of course, this is a "powder ski" but I used it everywhere... Big lines, fresh backcountry powder, shredded in-bounds scraps, bulletproof hardback, deep slush, and in the terrain park. It excels in powder, with the HRZNtech "boat hull" shape really in its element, making smear turns, butters, and all-around playful goodness being where it is best suited. The 192 length is a little bit stiffer if you're a bit more of the charging type.

It also performs surprisingly well on groomers, and holds an edge very well considering its width. This is not a race ski... if all you want to do is link turns on corduroy, look elsewhere. In the deep springtime slush conditions, you will be blasting past everyone and absorbing choppy terrain like nothing.

If you want one ski to do it all, and prefer a fat ski over something skinny and cambered, you will not be disappointed. If you only hit powder or anything soft a couple of times a year, and love carving aggressively on ice more often than not, it might not be the ski you're after.

Hi Nick, I am torn between the Bent Chetler 185 and 192. Mainly I am going to use it for skiing trees, jumps, pillows and a bit touring so i thought the 185 could be the right choice. But as I am 6’1" with 187 lbs I am wondering if the 185 would be a bit too short for me. Otherwise I am not sure if the 192 could be too stiff with its harder flex and not playful enough for my kind of skiing. What do you think?

I am 6'1' 190lbs and I primarily ski the 185. If you do a lot of tight trees, jumping, and resort riding i think you'd probably prefer the 185 to be honest. The 192 is a little bit stiffer, but still softer than the previous generation Bencthetler. If its going to be 1-ski for most (all) days, I would suggest 185cm mounted at +2 so you have a little bit longer nose than tail. I usually use the 192 for the really deep days, or for open alpine lines for the most part.

Comment on Nick McNutt's review »

A different breed of pow ski

Groomers: I found the skis perform reasonably well. While they did anything but carve, they were stable and surfy on corduroy, and the tips didnât exhibit the slightest ârocker flap.â

Packed Powder: These sticks are like tanks that gobble up everything in their path. Although the tips and tails are beveled with HRZN Tech, and are therefore lighter than most, I never felt that they folded under pressure when the going got rough.

Ice: I slipped and slid on ice like never before and sometimes got seriously spooked when side-stepping over exposure. Iâm used to skis with more camber, flatter tails and ample sidecut for times like these, so the Bent Chetler were not fun until I got into softer stuff. To be fair, these are powder-specific skis, so nobody can reasonably expect anything more from them while staring down a chute covered in wind-scoured styrofoam.

Powder: With the bindings at a more center mount, I had to keep my stance far more forward than usual and really dig in with the tips to the point that I felt like I would tip head over heels. But those tips donât dip with the HRZN Tech that acts like the hull of a boat. Now that I figured out how to manage the rockered, beveled tails, Iâm in love with the new Atomic Bent Chetlers. Those âspoonedâ tips and tails could probably scoop ice cream, and they love to make wide-sweeping turns on open faces, but also do well while tree skiing in the deep.

2015 Atomic Bent Chetler Ski

Comment on Grant Kates's video »

A whole new ski

I had the opportunity to ski these skis for a day at Alta last season. It happened to be a pow day...weird.

I have been on the JJ's for 4 years now and I think this is the ski that has convinced me to leave them. I have also skied previous models of the Bent Chetler and this is a whole new ski.

What's new from the old Bent Chetlers? 1) It's a bit stiffer. I was stoked on the flex of this one, it felt more stable than it's been in the past and was noticeable on the bigger, steeper lines. The turning radius hasn't changed much but it still felt nice and stable when mobbin fast, and open. Stomps cliffs like a boss also. 2) HRZN Tech obviously. This is the boat hull-like tip and tail everyone's been talking about. A couple things I noticed here is that the tips didn't want to sink quite as much and made for some smooth turns in the deep snow. Also, it dominated as the snow got cruddy. It did a good job of pushing snow away from the ski so that you could still lay down a nice carve.

I am 6'2" 175lbs, an aggressive skier and skied the 185cm size. I would jump up to the 192s if (when?) I get myself a pair. Overall these are more of a charger than they've been in the past, but still a super fun, playful ski.

If you have any other questions with them or would like to order a pair, hit me up! adegnan@backcountry.com

Yep, just finally got my 192s mounted up. Skied them yesterday and today at Snowbird. It's been pretty cruddy up there lately and they ate up that curd a bit better than the 185s (given, I mostly skied the 185s in pow). Between heavier bindings on my 192s (Pivot 18s) and the slightly longer length I did notice the weight difference. But that's something you'll just get used to and eventually not even notice. Overall the 192s will charge a little harder and are still playful. Also, the 185 and 192 have slightly different recommended mounting points I noticed. I mounted my 192s at the recommended line, but would mount the 185s -1.5 or -2 from recommended. This issues seemed a bit weird and my buddy had to mount his twice because of this.